|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 13, 2017 15:44:10 GMT -6
Yesterday I was discussing with my parents the release of the movie version of The Shack and its apparent heresies and whatnot (which is probably best saved for another thread…) and the topic came up of what the Christian response to such things that may have lots of good theology/teachings but some not-so-good stuff. A good example might be someone like Joel Osteen who teaches a lot of truth I’m sure, but also teaches what most biblically-sound Christians would consider to be straight-up heresy. If your non-Christian friend was only interested in listening to Osteen but no one else within the “Christian” realm, should you (as a devout Christian) encourage him/her to continue listening? Even if there are some things majorly wrong with The Shack, should we still take our non-Christian friends to see it as a means of outreach? If not, where do we draw the line? My discussion actually became fairly tense because we have pretty differing opinions. What are your thoughts?
I believe that the line should be drawn at the edge of what’s “orthodox” and what’s not. If there are ANY teachings that are in direct opposition to God’s Word, then we should never encourage anyone to partake – even if some good can be gleaned from it. (Let me frame this by limiting this conversation to which church you regularly attend, books you read to learn from, etc. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t ever read things from “the other side” to gain understanding in how to combat them and such. I’m talking about when seeking biblical and godly input.) So if a church does communion once a month instead of once a week for example, no big deal. Each church might have biblically-backed reasons for doing so and believe strongly in what they do, but doing it one way or the other most likely won’t lead anyone astray. But a church that regularly preaches the prosperity “gospel” on the other hand IS a big deal and should never be encouraged IMO. Yes, God can and does use terrible things to His glory and redeems even the most vile of situations, people, and tragedies… but that does not mean we should ever encourage or support such things in hopes of Him redeeming them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 16:10:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 14, 2017 11:36:12 GMT -6
A good example might be someone like Joel Osteen who teaches a lot of truth I’m sure, but also teaches what most biblically-sound Christians would consider to be straight-up heresy. -_______________________________- If "biblically-sound" Christians consider some of what Joel Osteen says to be "straight-up heresy", they're completely missing the point. At a risk of sounding like a broken record from a post in the SoA, there's biblical/literary context, and there's an inspirational context. My opinion, just because something doesn't match Biblical/written context, doesn't make it wrong. ...and anyone who smashes inspiration just to adhere to Biblical context is throwing the baby out with the bath water. When I went to church for the first time in 10 years this past Sunday, I noticed the bookmark in the Bible I took was Jeremiah 29:11. Of course the first thing I thought of was Kerrick's posts, and envisioned me or me by-proxy my mother (who actually MADE HERSELF the bookmark for me) getting browbeat by a "biblically-sound" Christian at this new church I went to, questioning me why I have that on a bookmark since I've never been in Babylonian exile. Completely NOT the point. Knowing God has plans for me, AS A GENERAL QUOTE, is inspiring. ...and as long as I'm not quoting verses in regards to Bingo winnings, or something else petty, what's really the harm for believing God has a plan for my life? One of the funniest jokes I ever heard from my dad was when he was talking with one of his friends regarding her discussions with her son and doctrine, doctrine, doctrine and more doctrine. Without missing a beat, my dad broke into singing a hymn, but changed a few words. "♪♫They'll know we are Christians by our doctrine, by our doctrine, yes they'll know we are Christians by our doctrine...♪♫" I laughed about that much later in life than my dad did when he killed the conversation with that joke, but there's so much truth to that, more than I realize when I first heard it. To answer the big-picture question of this thread, ANY media or popular reference that helps someone get closer to God, regardless of how off key it is to written Biblical context, should be encouraged by ALL Christians. For one, Christianity is much more effective when it works with ANYTHING that gets people closer to God. Movies, support groups, psychologists, etc. For two, they'll know we are Christians by our LOVE, not our doctrine - not to say doctrine isn't important at all, but big-picture, there's priorities with people here. When I had a colonoscopy and endoscopy December 21st 2015 and they found colon cancer, they also found a hiatal hernia. Can you imagine what would have happened if my doctors would have put major emphasis on addressing my hernia before (or in equal to) my cancer? I'd be dead. What happened was as soon as they were sure it was cancer, they said "We need to start treatment for this IMMEDIATELY" - once I got some of that under my belt, THEN they gave me some medication to help with the hernia. (which WAS causing me problems - I just didn't know what it was before being scoped) If someone isn't saved or completely right with God/faith/Christianity in general, we should drop everything else and support ANYTHING that effectively treats that. Doctrinal problems (and there will be symptoms of problems) can be addressed later. Addressing doctrine DESPITE faith or holy inspiration is potentially FATAL, and at a bare minimum can make Christianity a horrible taste in someone's mouth. [/rant]
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 14, 2017 12:43:54 GMT -6
Haha I figured you'd have strong opinions on this. Thanks for sharing; I hope my opinions aren't too offensive! there's biblical/literary context, and there's an inspirational context. My opinion, just because something doesn't match Biblical/written context, doesn't make it wrong. ...and anyone who smashes inspiration just to adhere to Biblical context is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Agreed in principle... but what about where those lines blur? Continuing to use Joel Osteen as an example, I would argue that he crosses that line. Encouraging people is good. There is plenty of encouragement in God's Word. Focusing solely on that is a great disservice and paints an incomplete picture of God... but... I wouldn't necessarily consider that in itself heresy. My understandings of Osteen's teachings though are that it's all about OUR lives. God exists for us, not the other way around. God is a magic genie whose purpose is to make our lives great. If we're suffering hardship, it's because we deserved it and aren't "good enough" Christians. THAT I consider to be heresy, as it is leading people astray to ultimately worship self and not our Creator, let alone completely undermining Christ's teachings of sufferance. There is no baby in that bath water. Knowing God has plans for me, AS A GENERAL QUOTE, is inspiring. ...and as long as I'm not quoting verses in regards to Bingo winnings, or something else petty, what's really the harm for believing God has a plan for my life? For sure, and that takes discretion and discernment. Jeremiah 29:11 is true in the sense that God does indeed have a plan for us Christians to spend eternity with Him which is a beautiful future in which we prosper and are not harmed. You know that, I know that, but the danger is that the new believer might not and read that as a literal and immediate promise directly to them. And when that new believer faces hardship, harm, and the like... their faith in God will be crushed because He is now a liar, according to their understanding of that verse. As a general quote, it is inspiring and there's nothing wrong with that. To answer the big-picture question of this thread, ANY media or popular reference that helps someone get closer to God, regardless of how off key it is to written Biblical context, should be encouraged by ALL Christians. This I would disagree with though... Ultimately, it is not the really good preacher, the really bad preacher, the inspirational book, or the theology lecture class that saves... it is by Holy Spirit sent by God the Father made possible through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection that we are saved. The fact that anything "helps" people get closer to God I believe is solely by His grace and mercy, not by the power of that thing. God can and does redeem terrible things to bring Himself glory and expand His kingdom. But I don't think anyone thinks we should be hoping for the next tragedy or catastrophe just so God can redeem it. Similarly, I don't believe we should ever support the theologically-off preacher or book or movie just because God is bigger than them and has the power to redeem the effects of their sinful actions. And I suppose that is the crux of the matter to me. they'll know we are Christians by our LOVE, not our doctrine - not to say doctrine isn't important at all, but big-picture, there's priorities with people here. Yes but what is love (baby don't hurt me...)? How can we understand what love is without sound doctrine? What is considered "love" nowadays is far different than what is described in God's Word. To "love" now is to blindly support and encourage people in whatever they do - be it sinful and against God or not - so long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else. That is not love, that is passively watching people drown and not give them a hand up. Now of course the opposite of this (which it'd seem I may sway towards...) would be the other extreme of forcing people up and out before they're ready or willing: self-righteously pointing out the speck in their eye, etc. It is true, nonbelievers will know us by our love for one another; that is scriptural. But if we don't [lovingly] correct one another to go back to God's commands on how to love and just what love is, they'll know us by something else that is not love at all. I apologize if I came off too strongly. If I can dish it out though, I better be able to take it. So if you disagree with me or if I'm out of line, I hope y'all would put be back in line.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 14, 2017 16:14:39 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing; I hope my opinions aren't too offensive! As far as what you believe from a doctrinal standpoint, that would never be offensive to me. ...and I don't want anyone to think I'm against correcting a doctrine, ...but making a bee line right for it, what is actually being corrected, and the motive behind the correction CAN be offensive to me. Agreed in principle... but what about where those lines blur? Continuing to use Joel Osteen as an example, I would argue that he crosses that line. As far as what someone views or listens to that "ministers" to them, there's NO blurred lines. The lines are clearly drawn when they deduce incorrect doctrine from what they watch/listen to. Just because someone spends time reviewing Joel Osteen content, doesn't mean they'll walk away with a skewed doctrine any more than you will from listening/watching it - irregardless of what he says. More often than not, right or wrong, people take what they like and leave the rest. My understandings of Osteen's teachings though are that it's all about OUR lives. God exists for us, not the other way around. We don't exist for God? Everyone in ministry has their calling. Going to a church food drive for inspiration and getting grocery bag instead isn't any more biblically inaccurate than someone going to a Joel Osteen "concert" and expecting a bag of food and they "only" get inspiration. Here's the kicker though. I don't think those who are public spokesman AGAINST Joel Osteen (and forum posts IS public spokesmanship) fully understand the fallout that will occur. Going back to Ravenwolf on the CMR, what good did it REALLY do for the CMR gank squad to bash his "favorite preacher"? Correcting something without regard for the fallout is no different than seeing someone with a knife stuck in them and walking over and pulling it out without thinking of the harm that would cause. (I'm assuming we're all aware, from a medical standpoint, if someone is impaled by an object, its ILL ADVISED to remove it ASAP because it could cause massive (internal) bleeding) Yes but what is love (baby don't hurt me...)? How can we understand what love is without sound doctrine? What is considered "love" nowadays is far different than what is described in God's Word. To "love" now is to blindly support and encourage people in whatever they do - be it sinful and against God or not - so long as it doesn't "hurt" anyone else. Well, love isn't exactly pulling the knife out just because there's a knife there either. Jeremiah 29:11 is true in the sense that God does indeed have a plan for us Christians to spend eternity with Him which is a beautiful future in which we prosper and are not harmed. You know that, I know that, but the danger is that the new believer might not and read that as a literal and immediate promise directly to them. And when that new believer faces hardship, harm, and the like... their faith in God will be crushed because He is now a liar, according to their understanding of that verse. Correcting someone that drew an incorrect conclusion from that verse (ie: God has a plan for me to get a girlfriend) is one thing... Yeah, that needs to be smashed. Come on now. ...correcting someone using that verse, JUST because its not "the biblical context", especially if they drew a healthy conclusion (ie: I'm still alive after cancer because God has a plan for me) is another. Smashing that ONLY creates fallout. This I would disagree with though... Ultimately, it is not the really good preacher, the really bad preacher, the inspirational book, or the theology lecture class that saves... it is by Holy Spirit sent by God the Father made possible through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection that we are saved. Eh. You're reading between the lines of what I said. Of course salvation is through Christ, but people COME to WANT that for all sorts of reasons. What does that tell you when someone comes to WANT salvation through something you've deemed "heresy" (ie: Joel Osteen)? Similarly, I don't believe we should ever support the theologically-off preacher or book or movie just because God is bigger than them and has the power to redeem the effects of their sinful actions. And I suppose that is the crux of the matter to me. Is Joel Osteen 100% poison and "theologically off"? Is everything he's said against Christian doctrine? If so, I'm not seeing it - and that suddenly became the bigger problem in this thread. If not, why are we expecting perfect doctrine alignment from him? Have you never said anything un-biblical before in a faith based context? I apologize if I came off too strongly. If I can dish it out though, I better be able to take it. So if you disagree with me or if I'm out of line, I hope y'all would put be back in line. You're not out of line at all. ...in case its not already known though, there's an equal amount of concern you have over this, from the other side of the fence, for different reasons. Lets talk about doctrine itself for a minute. Kerrick, I'm not sure which denomination you more closely align with (or if you've cherry picked doctrines here and there and file under "non-denominational") but I want to point out something. Whatever Christian doctrine in whatever Christian denomination(s) you disagree with, keep in mind that those "incorrect" doctrines came 1) centuries before you were born 2) by Godly men 3) who were more "theologically educated" than you or I ever will be. Saying otherwise from THAT, takes a certain amount of pride and ego and is just asking for war. My take regarding doctrine is one of state and national borders. If the US represents "Christianity" and the states represent denominations, I SHOULD be able to go from California to Maine without running into anything worthy of complete upheaval, just because I compare laws with people in different states. Trying to align Oregon and Korea, obviously, there's going to be considerable and incompatible differences... ______________________________________ I want to share a story with you. Maybe this will help explain my views regarding this, maybe not. I was in 7th or 8th grade and regularly attending a "Christian" church. (that was the denomination, "Christian") Everything seemed normal, until one day in Sunday school, the teacher said that you HAVE to be baptized, (it is a 100% requirement of salvation as we know it) or you're going to hell. I objected, and of course out of the class of 10+, I was the ONLY one who objected. Not trying to be a smartass (though it probably came across as it) I said "What about the thief on the cross?", "What about someone dying in a car wreck on their way to get baptized?" That class ended, only for next week's Sunday school lesson to be 100% ENTIRELY about how baptism is required to enter heaven. I still objected, but I wasn't prepared with scripture so it was little more than me disagreeing with basic logic, but told my dad afterwards as to what happened. He hand wrote on an 8.5"x11" sheet of paper and filled the whole page with Bible verses, referencing that baptism is NOT required to enter heaven. I was ready for battle come next week. I entered Sunday school that next week and not only was the topic AGAIN the requirement of baptism, but several church elders/deacons attended my junior high Sunday school class. It didn't go well, and yes, they pulled rank. Long story short, my dad pulled us out of that church and it was more than just my family that left. Part of it was the baptism thing, but the other part was some sort of a "lie" the preacher told my mom to try to put a wedge between her and my dad. (don't know any more about it than that - and I didn't ask because I was just happy to be leaving) I guess I should have prefaced by saying I WAS baptized, had been for years, they knew it and this all still happened anyway. So what was the fruit of them correcting this "wrong" doctrine I had? Well, I resented them for being dicks about it. Literally the church almost split in half and us that left went into a new building. They STILL didn't change my mind about baptism. What more is there to say about it? My final thoughts for this post, if I see something wrong from a doctrinal standpoint that someone says, (the last time I did this, someone was wielding a Leviticus 19:28 weapon, as to why Christians shouldn't have tattoos) I'll disagree with it and say why... BUT THAT'S IT. CONSIDER IT NOW DROPPED. I'm NOT going to brow beat them over "converting" to "God's"(my) way. I'm NOT going to go on secret missions to get them to change. I'm NOT going to babysit them until they get the fly out of their ointment. I'm NOT going to slander them to anyone else on how "wrong" they are and me and some friends try to gank them. I'm DEFINITELY NOT going to drag this out publically. I'm NOT going to do ANYTHING to cause "massive internal bleeding" just because I KNOW God is / I am right, they are wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:41:06 GMT -6
My turn to jump in the fray. As far as what someone views or listens to that "ministers" to them, there's NO blurred lines. The lines are only blurred when they deduce incorrect doctrine from what they watch/listen to. Just because someone spends time reviewing Joel Osteen content, doesn't mean they'll walk away with a skewed doctrine any more than you will from listening/watching it - irregardless of what he says. But still, if we're promoting people like Osteen and encouraging people to listen to him, aren't we then giving him our stamp of approval? Aren't we saying, "We endorse this, this is correct,"? This could start someone on the entirely wrong path. Well, love isn't exactly pulling the knife out just because there's a knife there either. What Kerrick said about love here is very true. Society has an extremely skewed view of what exactly "love" is. Sure, love isn't pulling out the knife because it's there. But it's also not refusing to tell someone about their knife. It's taking them to a place where it will be safely removed. Eh. You're reading between the lines of what I said. Of course salvation is through Christ, but people COME to WANT that for all sorts of reasons. What does that tell you when someone comes to WANT salvation through something you've deemed "heresy" (ie: Joel Osteen)? This might be where theological differences come into play, but one Calvinist doctrine is total depravity, which (to my understanding) states that one cannot choose to follow God on their own without intervention from the Holy Spirit. If this is true (and I believe it is), then it is pointless to intentionally lead someone down a partially incorrect path with hopes that they reach the correct one. No one comes to want salvation without the Holy Spirit, and if that happens to someone, I trust that God will find a way to lead them to the correct path. I cannot imagine that any individual who would be swayed to Christianity by Osteen would not be swayed by more sound doctrine. Whatever Christian doctrine in whatever Christian denomination(s) you disagree with, keep in mind that those "incorrect" doctrines came 1) centuries before you were born 2) by Godly men 3) who were more "theologically educated" than you or I ever will be. Saying otherwise from THAT, takes a certain amount of pride and ego and is just asking for war. Well, certain Christian doctrines from different denominations inherently contradict each other, and thus only one can be correct. Odds are that both were created by godly, theologically educated men. So doesn't it make sense to choose one and reject the other? I agree that it would be dumb for someone to come up with entirely their own doctrine that contradicts everything from the past, but choosing one denomination or one doctrine over another just makes sense. I wouldn't call it prideful for me to reject some of the beliefs of the Arminians.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 14, 2017 17:05:03 GMT -6
My turn to jump in the fray. About time. I took you for someone who'd just rather stay out of the boat than be in it and rock it, so in a way, this is very refreshing. But still, if we're promoting people like Osteen and encouraging people to listen to him, aren't we then giving him our stamp of approval? Aren't we saying, "We endorse this, this is correct,"? This could start someone on the entirely wrong path. The path should be towards salvation, not being "correct" on some fine print. Sure, love isn't pulling out the knife because it's there. But it's also not refusing to tell someone about their knife. It's taking them to a place where it will be safely removed. I agree they should know about the knife... but if you yourself are going to make it a mission to correct their doctrine, what are you going to do if they don't want YOU to pull the knife out? Pull it out anyway? Nag them indefinitely until they let you pull it out? I cannot imagine that any individual who would be swayed to Christianity by Osteen would not be swayed by more sound doctrine. They would never be swayed by the doctrine, but by the delivery of "being wrong". People correct others doctrine as if that person has got one foot already in hell, and I disagree with that level of urgency. My opinion, correcting doctine (which I interpret to be ANYTHING to do with Christianity that DOESN'T have to do with their already direct acceptance of salvation) should be to the level of: "Hey man, you've got a giant booger in your hair. IF "Hey thanks, uh, how do I get it out?" THEN "Here, let me help you with that." IF "No I don't. Go away from me." THEN "Just trying to help bro. Suit yourself." Well, certain Christian doctrines from different denominations inherently contradict each other, and thus only one can be correct. Odds are that both were created by godly, theologically educated men. So doesn't it make sense to choose one and reject the other? It makes sense to choose one and reject the other. ...but it doesn't make sense to vigorously start pulling knives out of people just because their conclusion (also by Godly/Christian men) is different than yours. It makes the antithesis of sense when that person is SAVED (the knife wound isn't fatal) and someone still insists on pulling it out. I wouldn't call it prideful for me to reject some of the beliefs of the Arminians. I wouldn't either, but if you go around correcting all Armenians, don't be surprised if someone considers you an egotistical prick.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrick on Mar 15, 2017 11:38:49 GMT -6
As far as what someone views or listens to that "ministers" to them, there's NO blurred lines. Yes, but I argue that it's the Holy Spirit who ministers to them, NOT what someone views or listens to. And so if it's wrong* teachings or whatnot, then we should never encourage it. It is only by the grace of God that those things "wrong" are redeemed to be used for His glory. *I'll reiterate this more below, but in this instance by "wrong" I mean the difference between being orthodox and not, i.e. beliefs that will end you in heaven or hell. I am not talking about weekly vs monthly communion, infant baptism, etc. Sorry, that wasn't clear. I was speaking in my Joel Osteen voice haha. I wasn't claiming that but rather claiming that that is what Osteen believes. Here's the kicker though. I don't think those who are public spokesman AGAINST Joel Osteen (and forum posts IS public spokesmanship) fully understand the fallout that will occur. Going back to Ravenwolf on the CMR, what good did it REALLY do for the CMR gank squad to bash his "favorite preacher"? Correcting something without regard for the fallout is no different than seeing someone with a knife stuck in them and walking over and pulling it out without thinking of the harm that would cause. (I'm assuming we're all aware, from a medical standpoint, if someone is impaled by an object, its ILL ADVISED to remove it ASAP because it could cause massive (internal) bleeding) Well, this is where correcting lovingly comes in. It's difficult to do over the internet. Were the "gank squad" out of line? Or was he just way too over-sensitive? Or some of both? Debatable, but probably not worth debating. (For the record, he left when I came down on him sternly for disrespecting other users, not because of what was said by others about Osteen, though I'm sure that had some effect.) I think we agree that just barraging someone with arguments/debates probably isn't generally the most loving thing, but blindly encouraging people in whatever heresy or false teaching or whatever is at least as un-loving. However, the other extreme of this would be not sharing the Truth with someone because you deem them as not ready. IMO that is God's deal, not ours, to discern that. We're commanded to spread the Word, not tiptoe around peoples' emotions. Sharing Truth should never be at the cost of being tactful, though we should always strive for both (with tact being secondary). What does that tell you when someone comes to WANT salvation through something you've deemed "heresy" (ie: Joel Osteen)? Simply that by God's awesome grace and mercy He chooses to redeem something evil for something good - in the same way He expands His kingdom by redeeming a fatal tragedy. (I'm not saying an incorrectly exegeted sermon is the same as a typhoon that kills thousands, just that God is sovereign over all of it.) Is Joel Osteen 100% poison and "theologically off"? Is everything he's said against Christian doctrine? If so, I'm not seeing it - and that suddenly became the bigger problem in this thread. If not, why are we expecting perfect doctrine alignment from him? Have you never said anything un-biblical before in a faith based context? Well that's the original topic of the thread. Again, I'd like to make very clear that there is a distinction between being within orthodoxy and outside of it. I'll continue my thought in the immediately below quote/response.
Lets talk about doctrine itself for a minute. Kerrick, I'm not sure which denomination you more closely align with (or if you've cherry picked doctrines here and there and file under "non-denominational") but I want to point out something. Whatever Christian doctrine in whatever Christian denomination(s) you disagree with, keep in mind that those "incorrect" doctrines came 1) centuries before you were born 2) by Godly men 3) who were more "theologically educated" than you or I ever will be. Saying otherwise from THAT, takes a certain amount of pride and ego and is just asking for war. My take regarding doctrine is one of state and national borders. If the US represents "Christianity" and the states represent denominations, I SHOULD be able to go from California to Maine without running into anything worthy of complete upheaval, just because I compare laws with people in different states. Trying to align Oregon and Korea, obviously, there's going to be considerable and incompatible differences...
Fully agreed. What I think where we disagree is the difference between states and countries. Joel Osteen is across a country border, not a state border. He does not merely preach a version of Christianity that just focuses on the more positive aspects of our faith but rather preaches a false "gospel" that twists the true gospel in a way that yields something that looks like Christianity but is not. On the other side, the debate of Calvinism vs Arminianism is within the realm of orthodoxy. One or the other may be truly right, but neither understanding of God is going to send you to hell.
So what was the fruit of them correcting this "wrong" doctrine I had? Well, I resented them for being dicks about it. Literally the church almost split in half and us that left went into a new building. They STILL didn't change my mind about baptism. What more is there to say about it? My final thoughts for this post, if I see something wrong from a doctrinal standpoint that someone says, (the last time I did this, someone was wielding a Leviticus 19:28 weapon, as to why Christians shouldn't have tattoos) I'll disagree with it and say why... BUT THAT'S IT. CONSIDER IT NOW DROPPED. I'm NOT going to brow beat them over "converting" to "God's"(my) way. I'm NOT going to go on secret missions to get them to change. I'm NOT going to babysit them until they get the fly out of their ointment. I'm NOT going to slander them to anyone else on how "wrong" they are and me and some friends try to gank them. I'm DEFINITELY NOT going to drag this out publically. I'm NOT going to do ANYTHING to cause "massive internal bleeding" just because I KNOW God is / I am right, they are wrong.
Your family did the right thing in getting out of that church. Suggesting that you are saved by physical baptism is totally wrong and unbiblical - and outside of that orthodoxy border. If they're not preaching that Jesus saves... they are not a Christian church, no matter what label they give themselves. However, *if* they were correct in their doctrine, I think they would have had more legitimacy in their actions. No, they probably still didn't go about it particularly well at all... but I also wouldn't fault them as much for it.
This might be where theological differences come into play, but one Calvinist doctrine is total depravity, which (to my understanding) states that one cannot choose to follow God on their own without intervention from the Holy Spirit. If this is true (and I believe it is), then it is pointless to intentionally lead someone down a partially incorrect path with hopes that they reach the correct one. No one comes to want salvation without the Holy Spirit, and if that happens to someone, I trust that God will find a way to lead them to the correct path. I cannot imagine that any individual who would be swayed to Christianity by Osteen would not be swayed by more sound doctrine.
Well said.
Well, certain Christian doctrines from different denominations inherently contradict each other, and thus only one can be correct. Odds are that both were created by godly, theologically educated men. So doesn't it make sense to choose one and reject the other? I agree that it would be dumb for someone to come up with entirely their own doctrine that contradicts everything from the past, but choosing one denomination or one doctrine over another just makes sense. I wouldn't call it prideful for me to reject some of the beliefs of the Arminians.
Agreed, though again, we need to differentiate between orthodox and not. Within the realm of orthodoxy, there is "more" or "less" "correct" but they are still "correct enough." Salvation is not on the line here. Believing in specific doctrine is good and we should choose - not just saying "whatever floats your boat" to a degree... yet at the end of the day, these aren't crucial relative to believing in orthodox Christianity or not.
The path should be towards salvation, not being "correct" on some fine print.
Yes! But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards most correct.
They would never be swayed by the doctrine, but by the delivery of "being wrong". People correct others doctrine as if that person has got one foot already in hell, and I disagree with that level of urgency.
Well this goes back to just where that dividing line is. If it's within the realm of "true" Christianity, then yeah, we don't need to argue to the point of hurt feelings about it. But if it's beyond the realm of true Christianity... there is definitely some urgency there.
I wouldn't either, but if you go around correcting all Armenians, don't be surprised if someone considers you an egotistical prick.
Haha true, but that's an "in-house" debate. Not crucial to salvation, but totally central to how we view and understand our Creator and Savior and our relation to Him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 13:43:06 GMT -6
The path should be towards salvation, not being "correct" on some fine print. As Kerrick pointed out, false doctrines like the prosperity gospel could lead to a devastating loss of faith if a life crisis occurs. It's important to start correctly. I could never imagine intentionally leading someone into Mormonism or Gnosticism just because it seemed more interesting to them than orthodox Christianity. I agree they should know about the knife... but if you yourself are going to make it a mission to correct their doctrine, what are you going to do if they don't want YOU to pull the knife out? Pull it out anyway? Nag them indefinitely until they let you pull it out? No...I'd most likely leave them alone at that point, or go find someone who can convince them better. They would never be swayed by the doctrine, but by the delivery of "being wrong". People correct others doctrine as if that person has got one foot already in hell, and I disagree with that level of urgency. My opinion, correcting doctine (which I interpret to be ANYTHING to do with Christianity that DOESN'T have to do with their already direct acceptance of salvation) should be to the level of: "Hey man, you've got a giant booger in your hair. IF "Hey thanks, uh, how do I get it out?" THEN "Here, let me help you with that." IF "No I don't. Go away from me." THEN "Just trying to help bro. Suit yourself." I'm not even trying to talk about correcting the doctrine of people who are already Christians. I was talking about why it's important to build faith through sound teaching. It makes sense to choose one and reject the other. ...but it doesn't make sense to vigorously start pulling knives out of people just because their conclusion (also by Godly/Christian men) is different than yours. It makes the antithesis of sense when that person is SAVED (the knife wound isn't fatal) and someone still insists on pulling it out. Once again, I'm not trying to talk about convincing Christians to subscribe to my theological beliefs. I was merely offering a logical rebuttal to your idea that rejecting old doctrines is bad. I wouldn't either, but if you go around correcting all Armenians, don't be surprised if someone considers you an egotistical prick. I don't do this. I've been at a church with an Arminian pastor for the past four years. We've discussed theology a little bit, but I don't make it my mission to correct him on everything.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 15, 2017 14:17:22 GMT -6
Yes, but I argue that it's the Holy Spirit who ministers to them, NOT what someone views or listens to. You know what I mean. Sorry, that wasn't clear. I was speaking in my Joel Osteen voice haha. I wasn't claiming that but rather claiming that that is what Osteen believes. Still not clear. Well, this is where correcting lovingly comes in. It's difficult to do over the internet. Were the "gank squad" out of line? Or was he just way too over-sensitive? Or some of both? Debatable, but probably not worth debating. (For the record, he left when I came down on him sternly for disrespecting other users, not because of what was said by others about Osteen, though I'm sure that had some effect.) I think we agree that just barraging someone with arguments/debates probably isn't generally the most loving thing Well, when multiple persons corner someone, you've got trapped animal syndrome. Another good example is me being kind of a dick in this thread because several people have put me in a corner. but blindly encouraging people in whatever heresy or false teaching or whatever is at least as un-loving. I'm not saying encouraging false teachings. I'm not saying to leave the knife there either. All I'm saying is that if you're a dick about pulling the knife out, you're doing it wrong and you'll piss them off to the point of wanting to, for one example, not go to fucking church for 10 years. You said so yourself Well, this is where correcting lovingly comes in. It's difficult to do over the internet. but if you or anyone else is absolutely "correct" then I also wouldn't fault them as much for it. so just charge in like Sir Galahad anyway. Am I the only one that sees the problem here? But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards most correct. The path of salvation will matter to us in 100 years. The path of whoever was right about that non-salvation church thing will not. Again, I'm all for correctness, but not if that means being a jerk about it to other people. As Kerrick pointed out, false doctrines like the prosperity gospel could lead to a devastating loss of faith if a life crisis occurs. It's important to start correctly. I could never imagine intentionally leading someone into Mormonism or Gnosticism just because it seemed more interesting to them than orthodox Christianity. There's a world of difference between "Do this, this is right" and "Don't do this because a few wrong things = 100% heresy." ie: Joel Osteen Then you've got the "I'd say its ok if they watch it" gets turned into a "You're encouraging heresy!!!" and before long, the ashes of resentment. I'm not even trying to talk about correcting the doctrine of people who are already Christians. What? You are though. There's even that in this thread. Once again, I'm not trying to talk about convincing Christians to subscribe to my theological beliefs. I was merely offering a logical rebuttal to your idea that rejecting old doctrines is bad. I never said rejecting doctrine is bad. Being a jerk about correcting the doctrine that you've deemed wrong in others is what I said is bad. Pulling the knife out just to get correction points or whatever, who cares about the massive internal bleeding is bad. I've been at a church with an Arminian pastor for the past four years. We've discussed theology a little bit, but I don't make it my mission to correct him on everything. Why not? You'd correct someone with the wrong doctrine anonymously over the internet, but not a fellow Christian to their face?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 14:59:46 GMT -6
There's a world of difference between "Do this, this is right" and "Don't do this because a few wrong things = 100% heresy." ie: Joel Osteen Then you've got the "I'd say its ok if they watch it" gets turned into a "You're encouraging heresy!!!" and before long, the ashes of resentment. I don't know enough about Osteen to declare that his teachings are "100% heresy". I just think there's a line to be drawn between slightly off and still acceptable (Calvinism vs. Arminianism) vs. very off and completely unacceptable (Gnosticism vs. orthodox Christianity). What? You are though. There's even that in this thread. I thought the thread was originally about whether or not it's okay to direct people towards somewhat-false teachings in hopes that someone finds faith. That's also what I was trying to comment on... I never said rejecting doctrine is bad. Being a jerk about correcting the doctrine that you've deemed wrong in others is what I said is bad. Pulling the knife out just to get correction points or whatever, who cares about the massive internal bleeding is bad. I agree. I suppose I misinterpreted your original statement then. Why not? You'd correct someone with the wrong doctrine anonymously over the internet, but not a fellow Christian to their face? Well, for one thing, my pastor has actually been to a Bible college, and I have not. (That alone would give him an advantage in a theological debate but it does not automatically validate every point he makes because there are plenty of Calvinist theologians who have received just and much or more education than he has.) As for correcting Christians with incorrect doctrine in general, it's not often that I find it necessary. I know a few Mormons, but I don't go out of my way to debate them, because what's the point of starting a random argument like that? If a theological discussion had naturally developed, then I would be all for debate. But I wouldn't just approach someone whose theology is different than mine and say, "Here's how you're wrong." For one, I don't have 100% confidence that my theology is completely correct. But it also just seems out-of-line to create spontaneous arguments like that.
|
|
|
Post by graavvee on Mar 15, 2017 21:03:05 GMT -6
To be short and grim I would never redirect another's Godly passion, not even if it were a threat to me directly as I've surpassed certain paths that has allowed me to not ponder on such a thing. I could also find myself getting flustered to the deep end of a concept i just wont accept. I will have to check out Osteen.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Mar 17, 2017 21:38:39 GMT -6
I find Joel Osteen's teachings positive and uplifting and I would have no problem encouraging someone to pursue where their heart is leading them if they desire to partake of his teaching. I'm not sure what everyone has against him. He is "too positive and uplifting"? I don't get it. Could someone point me to the specific teaching that is frowned upon? Is it just the fact that he is considered part of the Word of Faith movement? I don't even see him pushing WoF doctrine heavily. I'm not trying to push buttons here, I am just genuinely curious because I always see people dog Osteen and I've never fully understood why. I've watched maybe 20 or more of his episodes and I just don't see anything quite so bad. I've not read any of his books though, so maybe I'm not informed enough. I have one of his books on my shelf that I got at discount and I intended to read it one day when I am in the mood.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Mar 25, 2017 1:16:58 GMT -6
I wonder if it's his 10.5 mil dollar home. Meh, I'm not here to judge, if he believes it's okay to live extravagantly, I'm not standing in the way. I personally wouldn't trust myself with so much money, which is probably why God hasn't blessed me with millions. Are people suspicious about where the money comes from? Do you guys think he is using donation money to live in excess? I don't buy that, he could not get away with that considering how the IRS watches televangelists like a hawk. Remember he is a multi million copy book seller with multiple best sellers. Not to mention I'm sure he has other revenue streams and possibly inherited some such from his father. When I look at his quotes, especially ones from skeptical media interviews where they are obviously trying to trip him up, I can't help but agree with most of what he says. I don't agree with the Mormon comment but Osteen admitted he is ignorant about the specifics of their religion, and I'm not willing to judge Mormons either, though I disagree with their doctrine and believe it is mostly poison. That doesn't mean there might not be good intentioned Mormons who might really be saved. If anyone would like to go over anything Osteen has said or written from a Biblical perspective I'd be interested to discuss that.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 25, 2017 9:33:54 GMT -6
If you look in all the windows online where people call Joel Osteen a heretic, his worth/luxurious home always comes up. What also comes up is "that one thing" he said on Larry King, and a few other things that are just context issues. (he's using a personal/inspirational context, which differs from the biblical one) ...I can only theorize/assume though, because 2 YEARS of seeing hammers swing at Joel Osteen, not once have I seen a good reason as to why he's a heretic.
I theorize the Joel Osteen butthurt stems from: - jealousy of his success - that his church is literally the largest church in the US - that their own church is dying
Irregardless, I'm done with this thread, I'm done with this topic. This approach of Christians tearing down one another, especially behind their backs, saddens me. Its honestly enough to make me want to leave - here, there, anywhere and NOT COME BACK.
I'm just going to post a verse here and "suggest" that no one else make a thread here with an open backdoor to bashing people of faith. If I see one more person "attack" someone over something that has NOTHING to do with matters of salvation, then you're going to find out how fast and sharp my ban-sword is.
|
|